A Contrastive Study of Stance-Markers in Opinion Columns...

A Contrastive Study of Stance-Markers in Opinion Columns

of English vs. Farsi Newspapers

Mina Babapour1, Davud Kuhi*2

1. Department of English Language, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran

2. Department of English Language, Maragheh Branch, Islamic Azad University,

Maragheh, Iran

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Received: 2017.4.29

Accepted: 2017.9.28

Online publication: 2018.7.1

Abstract

This contrastive study was conducted to contrastively analyze English and Farsi

newspaper opinion columns in terms of the frequency of different types of stance

markers.60 newspaper opinion columns (30 written in English and 30 written in

Farsi) from 10 wide spread newspapers published in the United States and Iran in

2015 were analyzed. Hyland’s (2005) model of stance markers (hedges, boosters,

attitude markers, and self-mention) was used as the framework of analysis.The

findings revealed that hedges and self-mentions used by English columnists were

considerably more frequent than those employed by the Farsi columnists. In

contrast, Farsi columnists used large number of boosters and attitude markers.

Although, attitude markers were in the last position of sub-categories of stance

markers in both corpora.Generally, it could be concluded that the similarities and

differences among columnists could be related to the cultural and linguistic

preferences of the writers in languages. This study could be beneficial for EFL

students and teachers in understanding intercultural linguistic problems in

language use, and could be used to lead to creative reading and writing in

journalism and ESP courses.

Keywords: metadiscourse,interactional metadiscourse, stance markers,

newspaper, opinion columns

The Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice Vol.11, No.22, pp.23-53 Spring & Summer 2018

24 The Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice Vol. 11, No.22, Spring & Summer 2018

Introduction Despite the presence of various types of media in modern human’s life,

newspapers still remain as a powerful source of news and information. They

not only serve an informative purpose in our modern societies, but also educate

their readers by going beyond main facts in the in-depth analysis of columns,

commentaries and editorials.

According to Greenberg (2000) opinion discourse presumes a significant

communicative function through contributing to the media’s role of producing

certain, “preferred” opinions about the world. The function of opinion discourse

within the larger context of newspaper coverage is to provide newsreaders a

special and reliable “voice” that will speak to them directly about events of

public importance (Flower, 1991, p.221). Persuasion is a main characteristic of

opinion columns and these columns are "some of the most adequate examples

of persuasive writings in all countries, setting standards for written persuasion"

(Connor, 1996, p.144). Furthermore, opinion columns tend to obtain and

strengthen much of the readers’ knowledge and beliefs (Van Dijk, 1988). These

texts, like editorials, concern topics that are ‘‘considered to be of particular

societal importance at the time of publication’’ (Le, 2004, p.688).

Metadiscourse is a widely used term in current discourse analysis and

English for Academic Purposes, but it is not always used to refer to the same

thing. For some, it is an idea limited to elements which refer to the text itself,

looking inside to those aspects of a discourse which help arrange the text as text

(Hyland, 2010). Obviously, metadiscourse is a main area in discourse analysis

which helps writers to carry their intentional message efficiently by creating a

social and communicative interaction with the reader. Despite using

metadiscourse markers, writers would be capable of creating a coherent text

and therefore raising the efficiency of the text. Metadiscourse elements are

rhetorical tools that make a text reader-friendly and as such enable the writer to

reach the audience. Research over the past two decades has shown that the use

of metadiscourse in writing may vary from one language and culture to another

and that the conventions followed in its use may be different in different

cultures (Abdollahzadeh, 2003; Crismore, Markkanen, & Steffensen, 1993;

Mauranen, 1993). Cultural values are carried by language and set ways of

engaging others in writing. They can affect perception, language, learning,

communication and particularly the use of metadiscourse (Hyland, 2005a).

A Contrastive Study of Stance-Markers … 25

Hyland (2005a) specifies that metadiscourse is included the ‘interactive’

and ‘interactional’ dimensions. ‘Interactive’ elements are features of a text that

indicate the hypothesis a writer creates about his/her reader. The ‘interactional’

mentions expressions of the writer’s position and stances, and as Hyland

(2005a, p. 49) revealed, it is an expression of “the writer’s voice or community

based personality”. By definition, the interactive features manifestthe writer’s

performance in their text, while the interactional features illustrateit. The

interactive metadiscourseincludes transitions markers, frame markers,

endophoramarkers, evidential and code glosses, likewise interactional resources

include hedges, boosters, attitude markers, self-mention and engagement

markers (Hyland, 2005a). Interpersonal metadiscourse is one of the linguistic

features for directing a good relationship with audience in text. Because of this

feature which examines interpersonal relationship and interaction between

writer and reader, persuasive writing relates to this kind. Ultimately,

interpersonal metadiscourse markers will be easy to find in persuasive text,

especially opinion articles.Stance refers to the “writer-oriented features” of

interaction and concerns the ways writers comment on the accuracy of a claim,

the extent they show their commitment to it, or the attitude they want to express

to a proposition or the reader (Hyland, 2005a). By stance, Hyland (2005b)

indicates that researchers demonstrate their voice or personality and devolve

their judgments, opinions and commitments. Presenting stance depends on the

employment of four elements: hedges, boosters, attitude markers and self-

mentions (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Hyland's (2005) interpersonal model of metadiscourse


Hyland (2005a) defines hedges as devices that indicate the writer’s decision

to keep back complete dedication to a proposition, allowing information to be

presented as an opinion instead of fact. In research articles, he states, all

statements are evaluated and interpreted through assumptions; therefore, writers

have toevaluate what weight to give a claim, supporting to the degree of

accuracy or reliability that they want it to convey and maybeasserting

protection in the event of its eventual displacement (Hyland, 1998). In other

words, hedges highlight the subjectivity of an opinion by allowing information

to be presented as an opinion rather than a fact and as a result express that

opinion to negotiation (Hyland, 2005a). Isabel (2001) believed that hedging is

important for two main reasons. The first is to present the author’s attitude

toward his declaration and the second reason is to show the author’s attitude

toward the readers, that is to say that the author shows his declaration to be

depended on his expectations from the readers.

In addition, according to Hyland (2005a), hedges try to persuade readers by

opening a diffuse space where interpretations can be discussed. Making a claim

is risky because it can deny existing literature or question the views of one’s

readers. Arguments shouldassimilate readers’ expectations that they will be

allowed to participate in a dialogue and that their own views will be accepted in

the discourse (Hyland, 2005a).

Restated in Hyland (2005a), boosters are words which allow writers to

express their conviction in what they say and to point involvement with the

topic and unity with their readers. In other words, boosters are words which

allow writers to stopchoices, prevent opposing views and declare that they are

definite in what they say (Hyland, 2005a). Their function is to emphasize

shared information, group membership, and engagement with readers (Hyland,

1999). Ultimately, boosters can help writers to present their work with certainty

while effecting solidarity between writers and readers, setting the caution

suggested by hedges against declaration and involvement (Hyland, 2005b).

According to Hyland (2005a), attitude markers indicate the writer’s

affective, attitude to propositions, conveying surprise, agreement, importance,

frustration, along with others. Attitude is expressed throughout a text by the use

of subordination, comparatives, progressive particles, punctuation, text

location, and mostly by attitude verbs, sentence adverbs, and adjectives.

Attitude markers provide a chance for writers to reveal a notion of shared


attitudes, values and reactions to material. In this way, these devices help

writers to reach their main goals in persuasive writings or persuading their

readers (Hyland, 2005a).

As stated by Hyland (2005a), interactional meanings are largely sent

through attitude and engagement markers in popularizations, showing the

writer’s affective reactions to material, mentioning what is important, and

encouraging readers to engage with the topic. Unlike their roles in research

papers, where they indicate the writer’s attitudes and values shared with other

members of a disciplinary community, attitude markers in popularizations help

to convey an informal voice and emphasize the accessibility of the material.

The attitudes expressed are those which the interested unqualified reader might

be wanted to hold, rather than the writer.

Self-mention refers to the use of first person pronouns and possessive

adjectives to present propositional, affective and interpersonal information

(Hyland, 2001). The presence or absence of explicit author reference is mainly

a conscious choice by writers to embrace a particular stance and identity. All

writing conveys information about the writer;however, the convention of

personal projection through first person pronouns is maybe the most influential

ways of self-representation (Ivanic, 1988).

Metadiscourse choices which accomplish explicit writer presence are

almost related to authorial identity and authority (Ivanic, 1998). In research

writing the strategic use of self-mentionenables writers to claim such authority

by expressing their convictions, emphasizing their contribution to the field, and

pursuing recognition for their work (Kuo, 1999). They can play an important

role in showing the writers' relationship with the reader and their discourse

community (Kuo, 1999). Kuo also mentions that knowing how to use personal

pronouns productively has a great importance as giving them the opportunity to

emphasize their own contributions to their field and reinforce the agreement

with their readers. Self-mentions, in fact, help the writers to distinguish their

voice from the other point of views and communicate the uniqueness of their

contribution to create commitment and trustworthiness and develop connection

with audience (Hyland, 2008).

Regarding the literature on the use of metadiscourse in newspaper genre,

Dafouz-Milne (2008) investigated the role of metadiscourse in the opinion


columns of two elite newspapers: The Spanish El País and the British The

Times. The results revealed that the Spanish writers applied considerably more

textual metadiscourse than the English writers; on the contrary, the British

writers deployed more interpersonal markers. Moreover, Noorian and Biria

(2010) examined the role of interpersonal metadiscourse in opinion articles

written by American and Iranian EFL journalists in two elite newspapers in the

United States and Iran, The New York Times and Tehran Times. The findings

indicated on the presence of interpersonal metadiscourse in both data sets, but

there were significant differences between the two groups concerning the

occurrences of interpersonal markers, particularly in the case of commentaries.

Kuhi and Mojood (2012) examined a corpus of 60 newspaper editorials

(written in English and Persian) based on Hyland’s (2005) model of

metadiscourse. The results disclosed some similarities and differences in the

use and distribution of metadiscourse resources across English and Persian data

which were attributed to cultural/linguistic backgrounds of both groups of

editorialists. The interactional category and attitude markers proved to be,

respectively, the predominant metadiscourse category and subcategory in

newspaper editorials genre. In addition to these studies, there are a number of

studies which focused on interactional metadiscourse, stance and engagement

markers.Hyland (2008) suggested that interaction in academic writing is

achieved by making choices of stance and engagement features. Based on the

analysis of 240 research papers from eight disciplines, he found that self-

mentions and reader-pronouns, particularly inclusive we, were more common

in the humanities and social sciences while directives were the only interactive

feature which occurred most frequently in the hard disciplines.Yazdani, Sharifi

and Elyassi (2014) illuminated the role of interactional metadiscourse markers

in English and Persian news articles about 9/11 events. For this purpose, 30

English and Persian news reports (15 from each) were collected randomly and

Hyland’s classification system was utilized. The findings from the research

illustrated that American journalist employed interactional metadiscourse

markers more frequently in their news articles. Moreover, Iranian journalists

inclined not use self-mention and engagement markers. Moreover, Sayah and

Hashemi (2014) explored two specific devices as stance and engagement

features as Hyland's (2005) model and Prince, Frader, and Bosk’s(1982)

classification of hedges in different discourse ISI and non ISI journals. They


found significant differences in developing features like hedges, self-mention

and appeals to shared knowledge in either of them.

Newspaper discourse is probably among the most remarkable genre since it

is undeniably one of the most popular public media which has a wide range of

audience (Noorian&Biria, 2010), however most of metadiscourse studies

focused on academic genre. On the contrary, the investigation of metadiscourse

and in particular interactional metadiscourse in newspaper genre has received

little attention (Dafouz, 2008; Le, 2004; Abdollahzadeh, 2007; Noorian and

Biria, 2010; Kuhi&Mojood, 2012). Ultimately, in newspaper genre, some

studies such as Abdollahzadeh (2007) and Kuhi and Mojood(2012)

investigated metadiscourse use in English and Persian newspaper editorials.

However, little attention has been given to investigate interactional

metadiscourse, and in particular stance markers in use in English and Farsi

newspaper opinion columns. Regarding cross-linguist studies, to the present

writer’s knowledge, Abdollahzadeh (2007), and Kuhi and Mojood (2012) used

cross-linguistically analysis of metadiscourse use in English and Farsi

newspaper editorials. Nevertheless, there is a need of cross-linguist or

contrastive research to investigate sub-categories of metadiscourse in

newspaper opinion columns.

In order to fill the gap that exist in the studies on metadiscourse, this study

was conducted to contrastively analyze the use of stance markers categories and

sub-categories in English and Farsi newspaper opinion columns to compare the

probable differences and similarities in these texts and to determine the most

frequent sub-categories to the least frequent sub-categories of stance markers in

each group and compare the similarities and differences. Besides, this

contrastive study looked at some of the qualitative aspects of the use of stance

markers in the two corpora in order to find the reasons behind these similarities

and differences.

Method

Corpus

The corpus of this study consisted of 60 newspaper opinion columns (30

written in American-English and 30 in Farsi) which concluded 23603-word

corpus of English and 22990-word corpus of Farsi. The opinion columns in


both sets of data were selected from different range of topics like social,

political, cultural, economic, and world events. The two corpora were

constructed by the use of the opinion columns published in the electronic

versions of five English and Farsi newspapers. English newspapers included

The Los Angeles Times (latimes.com), The New York Times (nytimes.com),

USA Today (usatoday.com), Washington Post (washingtonpost.com), and

The Washington Times (washingtontimes.com).Farsi newspapers included

Arman (armandaily.ir), Etemad (etemadnewspaper.ir), Shargh

(sharghdaily.ir), Keyhan(keyhnnews.ir), and Mardomsalari

(mardomsalari.com). From each newspaper, six opinion columns were

selected. Due to the fact that cultural norms are different across different

languages and also across varieties of English (Adel, 2006), only American-

English newspapers were included in the data to prevent the possible effects

of this factor on the results and findings of the study. Also, due to the

possible effect of diachronic factors, only the ones published in 2015 were

included in the corpora.

Instrumentation

The analyses in this study were based on the first dimension of Hyland's

(2005) interpersonal model of metadiscourse in academic texts.He

subcategorizes stance as hedges, boosters, attitude markers and self-

mention. (See Figure 1). The reason for choosing this model was that it is a

powerful, explicit and useful model of metadiscourse. The items considered

to be stance markers were identified and categorized in the texts based on

Hyland's list of “metadiscourse items” (2005a, pp. 218-224), (see Appendix

A).His classification of metadiscourse markers provides a good starting

point for the analysis as it is fairly comprehensive; therefore, few elements

were likely to be failed to notice.Beside searching items, functions of items

in the texts similarly were also considered in the qualitative analysis. Since

this list was originally presented in English, each of these items were

translated into Farsi by using the Aryanpour Progressive English-Persian

Dictionary (2000) in order to have a Farsi list for the Farsi corpus.


Procedure

In order to reach the purpose of the study, the corpus of the research was

settled after finding opinion columns from newspaper web sites and

selecting different topics with different columnists.Subsequently, based on

Hyland's (2005) interpersonal model of metadiscourse, the stance markers

were distinguished and classified manually in the texts.Conversely, the

analysis was not limited to search items; frequency of stance markers in the

analyzed text was also considered.

One of the key feature of metadiscourse is that metadiscourse

distinguishes external and internal relations. An internal relation connects

events in the text, arranging the discourse as an argument and expressing

function of metadiscourse. An external relation connects events in the world

outside the text. Thus, in the process of analyzing texts, the sentences

representing an external relation (e.g. citations) were not considered. In

English corpus, for instance:

“as Obama put it, “to get worked up around issues that don’t actually

make us safer but make for good political sound bites.”The Washington

Post, November 20, 2015

In the sentence above, “actually” as a booster, and “us” as a self-mention

were not considered. Another example from Farsi corpus is

.دهمیمذا به مشتری غپرس از همان ، دوپرس غذامت یکدر ازای قی منممکن است یک رستوران بگوید

Arman, June 10, 2015

[Maybe, one restaurant tells I give two portion of food to a costumer in

exchange for price of one portion of food.]

In the sentence from the Farsi corpus, “I or من” was not considered as a

self-mention.

After identifying and categorizing the stance markers, in order

toestablish the frequency of different types of stance markers and to

determine the differences between the two corpora, aquantitative analysis

was conducted.Chi-square tests were utilized to analyze the data to explore

any differences among the overall frequency of stance markers in Farsi and

English corpus, and also among sub-categories of stance markers in both


groups.Moreover, the most frequent sub-categories of stance markers were

determined. To examine stance markers in Farsi opinion columns, the Farsi

equivalents of English markers were considered. Since a single judgment

seemed to be inadequate, the opinion columns were double checked by the

supervisor. Several discussion sessions were held with the supervisor to

solve any problems in the identification of stance markers used in the

newspaper opinion columns. Furthermore, the length of the

textswasnormalized to a common basis by applying 1000-word approach

(elements per 1000 words) to compare the frequency of occurrence because

it was not possible to have texts with exactly the same length.

Results

As it was mentioned earlier, opinion columns of English and Farsi

newspapers were analyzed to find differences and similarities of stance markers

usage. Here, the frequency of stance markers was counted and calculated per

1,000 words. Table 1 demonstrates the total number of stance markers in the

opinion columns of English and Farsi newspapers per 1000 words as well as

percentage of the frequency.

Table1

Total number of Stance Markers per1000 words in two different Opinion Columns of

Newspapers

Corpus Raw Number of

Stance Markers

Frequency per 1000

words

Percentage

English

(23,603 words)

818 34.65 3.46%

Farsi

(22,990 words)

493 21.43 2.14%

As illustrated in Table 1, the total frequency of stance markers of English

opinion columns consists of 3.46 percent of the words and Farsi ones consist of

2.14 percent.

Chi-square tests were run in order to examine probable significant

differences between the Farsi and English groups for employing stance

markers.


Table 2

Chi-square Analysis of overall frequency of stance markers on Hyland (2005)

Chi-square df Asymp. Sig.

Stance markers 80.568 1 .000

Based on the results of Chi-square test in Table 2, it can be inferred that there

was a noticeable difference between the groups in overall using of stance

markers (p<0.05).

In order to find the differences and similarities in the use of stance markers

in these texts, the frequency of each stance marker per thousand words were

calculated and their percentages were computed. Table 3 illustrates the

differences and similarities of each stance marker in each group.

Table3

Distribution and percentages of Sub-Categories of Stance Marker in English and Farsi

Opinion Columns

English Farsi

Stance

Markers

Raw

Frequency

Frequency

per 1000

words

Percentage Raw

Frequency

Frequency

per 1000

words

Percentage

Hedges 380 16.1 46.47 101 4.39 20.48

Boosters 157 6.65 19.19 215 9.35 43.64

Attitude

Markers

52 2.20 6.34 83 3.61 16.85

Self-

Mention

229 9.70 28.00 94 4.08 19.03

Total 818 34.65 100 493 21.43 100

As indicated in Table 3, in the case of English corpus, Hedges (16.1 per

thousand words) are followed by Self-Mention (9.70 per thousand words),

Boosters (6.65 per thousand words), and Attitude Markers (2.20 per thousand

words), while in Farsi corpus Boosters (9.35 per thousand words) followed by

Hedges (4.39 per thousand words), Self-Mention (4.08 per thousand words),

and Attitude Markers (3.61 per thousand words). Results revealed that Attitude


Markers placed in the last position in both English and Farsi opinion columns,

although the Farsi group used these resources slightly more than the English

group (3.61 vs. 2.20 per thousand words).

Table 4 illustrates the findings of sub-categories of stance markers, and a

Chi-square test on both English and Persian corpora.

Table 4

Chi-square Analysis of sub-categories of stance markers based on Hyland (2005)

Sub-categories of

stance markers

Chi-square df Asymp.Sig.

Hedges 161.832a 1 .000

Boosters 9.043b 1 .003

Attitude markers 7.119c 1 .008

Self-mention 56.424d 1 .000

Based on the results of Chi-square analysis in Table 4, it can be inferred that

English columnists showed more tendency toward the use of hedges, and self-

mentions (p<0.05). On the contrary, Farsi columnists used more boosters and

attitude markers.

Moreover, the most frequent sub-categories of stance marker had been

counted (Table 5).

Table 5

Distribution and percentages of Most Frequent Sub-Categories of Stance Marker in

English and Farsi Opinion Columns

English Farsi

Stance

Markers

Most

Frequent

Sub-

Category

Raw

Frequency

Percentage Most

Frequent

Sub-

Category

Raw

Frequency

Percentage

Hedges Would 72 18.94 May 17 16.83

Boosters Really 15 9.55 Must 81 37.67

Attitude

Markers

Even 22 42.30 Even 35 42.16

Self-

Mention

We 67 29.25 Our 44 46.80


As shown in Table 5, in English corpus, the highest frequency of Hedges use

belongs to “Would” with (18.94%). Boosters are used mostly “Really” with

(9.55%). “Even” with (42.30%) is used frequently as Attitude Markers, and

finally “We” (29.25%) as Self- Mention are the most widely used one.On the

other hand, in Farsi corpus, the highest frequency of Hedges use belongs to

“May or ممکن، محتمل” with (16.83%). “Must or باید“ with (37.67%) is

frequently used as Boosters. Like the English corpus, “Even or حتی” with

(42.16%) has the highest frequency in Attitude Markers, and “Our or مال ما”

with (46.80%) is frequently used as Self-Mention.

Going beyond the statistical analysis and frequency-based information of

the data, this contrastive study looked at some of the qualitative aspects of the

use of stance markers in the two corpora, which revealed some details.

a.Hedges: The data in Table 2, demonstrated that hedges were more

frequently used in the English opinion columns than in the Farsi opinion

columns. Although the purpose of the study has not been to analyze if these

hedges are used correctly, it is interesting to study howthey are used. The

following extracts are examples of the corpora in which some of the hedges

occurred. Literal translations are given for Farsi examples.

Example (a):

Second, it seems probable that cops would be less likely to abuse their

authority if they were being tracked. (En. Corpus, The New York Times, April

14, 2015)

The topic is about “The Lost Language of Privacy”, and the writer

expressed reasons to put body-mounted cameras on police officers and believed

that it would be a good idea, and also had a careful approach to it.

Example (b):

The foundation is not required to disclose donors or expenditures, so

following the money in a possible secret operation may not be possible. (En.

Corpus, The Washington Times, March 25, 2015).

The opinion column is about “Another murky mystery surrounding

Hillary’s private email”. The writer tried to answer one of the unanswered

questions about the BlumenthalDrumheller connection and avoided certainty.


Example (c):

All post-publication changes would be visible to readers, and the editor

could provide annotations to explain why the changes were made, and when.

(En. Corpus, Los Angeles Times, August 25, 2015).

“A rule for online news: Errors are inevitable; lack of transparency is not”

is the topic. The writer tried to explain advantages of digital publishing in order

to alert readers to substantive changes and alterations. The function of hedges is

to carry a cautious approach to the post-publication changes.

Example (d):

به مدیران ارشد یا خود وزیر آموزش و پرورش ارسال شود همانطور که ممکن استاین نامه

آنها به مسئوالن دیگری نامه بنویسند. ممکن است (Fr. Corpus. Arman, February 3,2015)

[This letter maybe sent to top managers or education minister, while they

may write a letter for other administrators.]

This opinion column is about problems of teachers in Iran. Some teachers

sent some letters to officials in order to express their discontents. The hedges in

this example, represent the weakening of the claim, and may show doubt.

Example (e):

نیز مطرح باشد و کشورها ٢٠١٥همراه اهداف دیگری در سال که این هدف بهرسدنظر میبه

نصف کاهش دهند.به ١٩٩٠متعهد شوند که نسبت خط فقر کشور خود را در قیاس با سال پایه (Fr.

Corpus, Shargh, September 30, 2015)

[It seems that this purpose with other purposes is raised in 2015 and

countries pledge to decrease their county’s poverty line scale by half in

comparison with 1990.]

The topic is about poverty line with political base, and the writer gave ideas

about the updated the international poverty line. Here, the hedges function is to

convey a cautious approach to the statements being made.

Example (f):

بوده است. دچار نوسانگاهيافزون براین قیمت بازار نفت همیشهثبات نداشته و

(Fr. Corpus, Mardomsalari, February 22, 2015)

[In addition, oil price has not always been constant and has sometimes

fluctuated.]

The topic is about oil price and lobbing with it. The writer’s idea is that

world policies influence oil price.The writer is basically expressing that he

cannot be certain about oil priceand his idea lies in his experience.


Moreover, the results of the study in Table 6 indicated that some hedges

were used more often than others.

Table 6

The ranked frequency of most common Hedges per1000 words in two different Opinion

Columns of Newspapers

English opinion

columns

Percentage Farsi opinion columns Percentage

1. Would (18.94%) 1. May (%16.83) ممکن

2. Could (13.64%) 2. Rather (%7.92) بیشتر

3. Should (6.57%) 3. Couldn’t (%7.92) نتوانست

4. May (5.78%) 4. Seems (%6.93) به نظر می رسد

5. Possible (4.73%) 5. Often (%5.94) اغلب

6. Might (4.73%) 6. Maybe (%5.94) شاید

7. Likely (3.68%) 7. Could (%3.96) می توانست

8. Rather (2.63%) 8. Sometimes (%3.96) گاهی

9. About (2.36%) 9. Unlikely (%2.97) بعید

10. Claim (2.36%) 10. Claim (%2.97) ادعا

Table 6 demonstrated the most common to the least common hedges in English

and Farsi opinion columns. “Would” with (18.94%) stand in the first place of

the table in English opinion columns whereas, “May” with (16.83%) stand in

the first place of the Farsi opinion columns.

b.Boosters:Based on the results in Table 2, boosters were more frequently

used in Farsi corpus than in English corpus. Following extracts are some

examples of boosters found in English and Farsi data. Literal translations are

given for Farsi examples.

Example (a):

Certainly Republicans have identified foreign policy as a winning issue.

(En. Corpus, The Washington Post, June 12, 2015)

The topic is about “America’s foreign policy recovery”. In this part, the

writer explained why some blamed the current administration. The booster

seems to be used in order to express a high degree of confidence in the

sentence.


Example (b):

America may be great, in fact I would argue it is, but it sure doesn’t look

great right now. (En. Corpus, The New York Times, September 14, 2015)

“America is great” is the topic, and the writer compared Europe with

America in greatness. Here, “in fact” precedes the idea or hypothesis that

America is great, and “sure” shows a high degree of confidence of the writer.

Example (c):

This would be done to make the Internet more “fair,” of course. (En.

Corpus, The Washington Times, February 16, 2015)

The topic is about “FCC, FEC look to ruin the internet”. “This” in the

sentence referred to regulate the Internet like a utility service. The booster

seems to function as a rhetorical device used to convey the author’s

interpretation as a generally accepted idea or fact.

Example (d):

کنند، پس کشور نیز جزو همین جامعه هستند و برای همین جامعه کار میکه هنرمندان تئاتر و تجسمی واضح است

(Fr. Corpus, Mardomsalari, January 13, 2015)در طراحی پوستر باشد.بايدایراد

[It is clear that theater and performing artists of the country are also

members of this society and work for this society; so, objection must be in the

design of the poster.]

The topic is about the poster of Fajr film festival. The writer criticized the

design and designer of the poster. The boosters are used to express the author’s

personal opinion in a distinct way.

Example (e):

شود مورد بررسی قرار گیردگان میعواملی که باعث مهاجرت نخب در واقع بايد

(Fr. Corpus, Arman, November 22, 2015)

[In fact, factors that cause brain drain must be examined.]

The opinion column is about reasons of brain drain in Iran. In this part, the

writer talked about Iranian elites who are experts in other countries.The

boosters seem to function as rhetorical devices used to convey the author’s

interpretation as self-evident.

Example (f):

موجب ناکارآمدی بیش از پیش سیستم فعلی براساس قطعاین اشتباه تاریخی در این مقطع حساس انجام شود، اگر ا

.شوددالیل زیر می


(Fr. Corpus, Keyhan, December 20, 2015)

[If this mistake in this critical time occurs, it will certainly cause this

current system ineffective more than ever for these reasons.]

The topic is about why the transfer of insurance to health department is not

good. The booster appeared to be used to reveal a high degree of certainty in

the text.

Furthermore, the results in Table 7 indicated a preference for certain

boosters.

Table 7

The ranked frequency of most common Boosters per1000 words in two different Opinion

Columns of Newspapers

English opinion

columns

Percentage Farsi opinion

columns

Percentage

1. Really (9.55%) 1. Must (%37.67) باید

2. Never (7.64%) 2. Of course (%9.76) البته

3. Sure (7.00%) 3. Certainly قطعا (9.30%)

4. Found (6.36%) 4. Believe (%6.51) اعتقاد دارد

5. Of course (6.36%) 5. True (%3.72) درست

6. Find (5.73%) 6. Show دادن نشان (3.25%)

7. Believe (5.09%) 7. Really (%2.79) واقعا

8. In fact (4.45%) 8. No doubt (%1.86) بی شک

9. Indeed (4.45%) 9. Always (%1.39) همواره

10. Certainly (3.82%) 10. Clearly (%0.46) آشکارا

The results in Table 7 revealed the most common to the least common boosters

in English and Farsi opinion columns. “Really” with (9.55%) stands in the first

place of Table 7 in English opinion columns. On the other hand, “Must” with

(37.67%) stands in the first place of the Farsi opinion columns.

c. Attitude Markers: The data in Table 2 shows that the frequency of

attitude markers in both English and Farsi opinion columns are nearly the same.

The following extracts are examples of the corpora in which some of the

attitude markers occurred. Literal translations are given for Farsi examples.

Example (a):


In particular, it's important that new members keep those opportunities in

mind, and act when and where they can to refocus Congress on the people's

business.(En. Corpus, USA Today, January 15, 2015)

The opinion column is about “Things Congress can get down in 2015”. In this

part, the writer focused on the frustration with an obstinate "do-nothing"

Congress. In this sentence, the writer delivered importance to the tasks of new

members of Congress.

Example (b):

And, as the debate over cop-cams has unfolded, I’ve been surprised by how

many people don’t see the downside to this policy. (En. Corpus, The New York

Times, April 14, 2015)

The topic is about “The lost language of privacy”, and the writer came to this

conclusion that putting body-mounted cameras on police officers is not a good

idea and delivered his surprise.

Example (c):

Sanders, Clinton's closest competitor, turned in a capable performance as well,

and, importantly, avoided his occasional weakness of sounding angry. (En.

Corpus, Los Angeles Times, October 14, 2015)

The opinion column is about “Democratic debate a talking-point triumph for

Hillary Clinton”. The writer delivered importance of avoiding angry sound.

Example (d):

بود.العادهفوقان در فضای مجازی علیه اظهارات اخیر نتانیاهو وسیع و حساسیت و واکنش شهروند

(Fr. Corpus, Shargh, March 6, 2015)

[Sensitivity and reaction of citizens in social media against recent claims of

Netanyahu were extensive and remarkable.]

The topic is about Iran nuclear deal, and its influence on politics and society.

The writer started the text with the sentence above, and expressed his

wonderfulness about the proposition.

Example (e):

هایی جدی مواجهیم.با ضعفمتاسفانهدراین مبحث نیز

(Fr. Corpus, Etemad, August 1, 2015)

[Also in this topic, unfortunately, we encounter serious weaknesses.]


This topic is about the new plan of air pollution prevention. In this part, the

writer focused on management of city traffic that could control air pollution,

and delivered his frustration.

Example (f):

هری را که ه چهره شهایی است کآنکه آنچه مایه تزلزل دولت بیروت شده عدم توانایی آن برای حل معضل زباله جالب

شد آلوده کرده است.زمانی عروس خاورمیانه نامیده می

(Fr. Corpus, Arman, August 31, 2015)

[It is interesting that what caused insecurity in Beirut government was inability

of the government in solving garbage crisis which has polluted the city.]

The opinion column is about garbage crisis of Beirut and widespread protests

by people. Based on the writer’s idea, the inability of the government in solving

garbage crisis was interesting.

Moreover, the results of the study revealed that some attitude markers were

used more often than others.Table 8 presented the most common to the least

common Attitude Markers in English and Farsi opinion columns. In both

English and Farsi opinion columns, “Even” with (42.30%) and (42.16%) stand

in the first place of the table.

Table 8

The ranked frequency of most common Attitude Markers per1000 words in two different

Opinion Columns of Newspapers

English opinion

columns


1. Even (42.30%) 1. Even (%42.16) حتی

2. Important (23.07%) 2. Unfortunately (%15.66) متاسفانه

3. Agree (7.69%) 3. ! (13.25%)

4. Agreed (7.69%) 4. Interesting (%4.81) جالب

5. ! (3.84%) 5. Hopeful (%4.8١) امیدوار

6. Fortunately (1.92%) 6. Surprising تعجب

برانگیز

(٢.4٠%)

7. Surprised (1.92%) 7. Astonishing (%2.40) عجیب

8. Disappointing (1.92%) 8. Important (%2.40) مهم

9. Appropriate (1.92%) 9. Remarkable (%1.٢٠) فوق العاده

10. Importantly (1.92%) 10. Fortunately

خوشبختانه

(1.20%)


d. Self-mention: The data in Table 2 presented that self-mention was more

frequently used in the English opinion columns than in the Farsi opinion

columns. The following extracts are examples of the corpora in which some of

the self-mentions occurred. Literal translations are given for Farsi examples.

Example (a):

By limiting the height of buildings based on the width of the street, we can

increase density without creating high-rise canyons. (En. Corpus, Los Angeles

Times, July 24, 2015)

The topic is “How to make Los Angeles more affordable and more livable”. In

this part, the writer answered what would better planning look like in Los

Angeles.

Example (b):

I don’t think it’s naïve to suggest that what came out ofParis gives us real

reason to hope in an area where hope has been all too scarce. (En. Corpus, The

New York Times, December 14, 2015)

The topic is “Hope from Paris”, and the writer talked about Paris climate

accord, and in this sentence, the writer represents himself.

Example (c):

Now as the U.S. enters a presidential election year, our economy seemingly

back on track after years of inactivity, the markets are preparing for a different

action. (En. Corpus, USA Today, December 15, 2015)

The topic is “Markets are never ready for the Fed”. In this part, the writer talked

about markets that are not prepared for the fallout by any stretch of the

imagination. Here, “our” represents the writer and more other people.

Example (d):

های برد که جز به عزمی واال و همتی جهادی و تکیه بر داشتهگون و مزمنی رنج میهای گونهاز بیماری مااقتصاد

.ها نخواهد بودخودی، امیدی به درمان آن

(Fr. Corpus, Keyhan, June 15, 2015)

[Our economy has been suffered from so many chronic and diverse diseases

that there would be no hope for remedy except high resolution, and relying on

own assets.]

The topic is about Iran’s nuclear deal and its following consequences. In this

part, the writer claimed that Iran’s economic problems were not relied on just

sanctions.


Example (e):

ها عقب خواهیم افتاد.سال ماگذار دولت باشد، متگر قیا

(Fr. Corpus, Arman, June 9, 2015)

[If the government controls prices, we will get back down the years.]

The topic is about price controls, and based on the writer’s idea, producers

should determine the prices. In this sentence, “we” means the writer and

people.

Example (f):

یست.رف آخر نحنیز در این باره مندالیل عمیقی دارد و نظر ماپایین آمدن سرانه مطالعه در جامعه

(Fr. corpus, Etemad, May 13, 2015)

[Fall of reading capitation in our society has profound reasons and my idea

about this is not the last word.]

The opinion column is about what new generation is not questioning. The

sentence above is the first sentence of the column.

Furthermore, the results of the study suggested a preference for certain Self-

mentions. Table 9 showed the most common to the least common self-mention

in English and Farsi opinion columns.

Table 9

The ranked frequency of most common Self-Mention per1000 words in two different

Opinion Columns of Newspapers

English opinion

columns


1. We (29.25%) 1. Our (%46.80) مال ما

2. I (28.82%) 2. I (%١8.٠8) من

3. Our (14.84%) 3. We (%13.82) ما

4. Us (8.29%) 4. My (%١٠.63) مال من

5. My (4.80%) 5. Me مرا ( 4. 25%)

6. Me (3.63%) 6. Us (%4.25) به ما

7. Mine (0.87%) 7. The author (%2.12) نگارنده

In Table 9,“We” with (29.25%) stands in the first place of the table in English

opinion columns. In contrast, “Our” with (46.80%) stands in the first place of

the Farsi opinion columns.


Discussion

This study was conducted to compare the frequency of different types of

stance markers in English and Persian newspaper opinion columns in order

toidentify the probable differences and similarities in the use of stance markers

in thesetwo types of data. Moreover, this contrastive study looked at some of

the qualitative aspects of the use of stance markers in the two corpora to find

the reasons behind these similarities and differences.

The results showed that stance markers are more frequently used in opinion

columns of English than Farsi newspapers. The findings regarding the overall

use of stance markers in Farsi corpus revealed that there is a significant

difference between the use of stance markers in English and Farsi newspaper

opinion columns.The results of Chi-square tests confirmed the statistical

significance of the difference among the two categories of English and Farsi

columnists.This finding demonstrates that English writers were evidently aware

of the important role of metadiscourse in persuasive writings (Hyland,

2005a).In a similar study, Yazdani et al. (2014) illustrated that the number of

interactional metadiscourse markers employed by American journalists was

higher in comparison with Iranian journalists about news articles of 9/11

events. On the contary, Kuhi and Mojood (2012) found that overall frequency

of metadiscourse resources in two groups of editorials- English and Persian

editorials- was similar, and they concluded that both groups used metadiscourse

to clearly signal text organization, assess its contents and persuade their readers.

The findings regarding the use of each stance markers in both groups

revealed that hedges were most frequently used in the English opinion columns.

However, the results revealed that hedges were not frequently used in the

selected Farsi opinion columns. It can be concluded that English columnists

refuse to give the commitment and open dialogue, and that they are more

sensitive in asserting their claims and tend to address their readers indirectly

(Ghadyani&Tahririan, 2014).The hedges function as means of conveying a

cautious approach to the statements being made, which might be a strategy

used by writers to “gain acceptance for their work” (Hyland, 2000, p. 179)

since hedges provide the author the opportunity toavoid taking responsibility of

the statement at a later time. Also, it suggests that the author is open for

discussion or even open to being proven wrong. Claiming to be too certain of a

statement could cause a reader to become suspicious about a potential lack of

objectivity behind the statement.As Crystal (1988) mentioned, using hedging

words are not always because of the author’s lack of knowledge. He revealed

three other reasons for using hedging words; first, people intentionally do not

like to be definite all the time. Second, sometimes, the writer understands that

the audience needs only half-truth specifically in scientific writings. And third,


using hedge words can act as safe guard, approaching further questions. This

result was appeared in the study carried out by Kuhi and Mojood (2012) in

which they concluded that the American editorialists overuse hedges, as

compared to Iranian editorialists. Furthermore, in the news articles written by

American journalists, hedges were the highest metadiscourse marker in

Yazdani et al. research.

In Contrast, Farsi columnist used more Boosters than English columnist in

the selected opinion columns to show they are certain about a given idea. Such

a difference is clearly representing that cultural differences are certainly at work

in text creation. The lack of hedges and the overuse of boosters in Farsi opinion

columns provides feeling of certainty in contrast to the English opinion

columns. Farsi columnists appear to be less conservative and instead address

their readers directly. The risk of overusing boosters is that the writer would be

in possibility of being criticized by the readers. Overusing boosters by Iranian

writers might demonstrate that they are so certain about their results that they

use powerful expressions, leaving little doubt about their interpretations. This

issue might imply Iranian writers' lack of knowledge of such devices. In the

studies by Noorian and Biria (2010) and Kuhi and Mojood (2012), these results

were demonstrated.

The frequency of attitude markers in Farsi opinion columns were more than

English opinion columns. This indicates that these markers played a role in

Iranian columnists’ attempt in persuading their readers regardless oftheir

cultural or linguistic backgrounds (Kuhi&Mojood, 2012).However, attitude

markers were in the last position of sub- categories of stance markers in both

corpora. These results showed that both English and Farsi columnists are

reluctant to show their attitudes directly.The reason that could be mentionedis

that both set of writers in the genre of opinion columns might be unaware of the

power of these metadiscourse devices which help writers in accomplishing their

main goals in persuasive writing and in persuading their readers. This result is

quite inconsistent with the result of the study conducted by Kuhi and Mojood

(2012). Beside the similar use of attitude markers in both sets of data, the

results uncovered that attitude markers form the most frequentmetadiscourse

strategy, both within interactional category andmetadiscourse resources, in

general, in both English and Persiancorpus.Moreover, in the study of Yazdani

et al. Persian news article involve a higher degree of these markers than the

Americans. They indicated that Iranian journalists tend to show their stance

implicitly.

The findings also revealed that American columnists employed self-

mention more than Farsi columnists. Employing more Self-Mention by the


English columnists suggest that they like to attach themselves to the discourse

community, which helps them to get involved in the argument (Hyland, 2001).

The reason why self-mention is not frequent in Farsi opinion columns is

because there might be different writing styles in formal contexts. According to

Yazdani et al.Iranian writers have instructed to use a third person pronoun and

passive structure to prevent self-mentioning in their texts.Therefore, as

Wishnoff (2000) argues, culture is important in clarifying what peoplesay, and

how, where, and when they say it.

The study revealed the most frequent sub-categories to the least frequent

sub-categories of stance markers in each group. Apparently, certain hedges

were more commonly used than others. The modal verbs would, could, and

may appeared to be the most frequently used hedges for both groups.Previous

research has demonstrated that ESL textbooks seem to place a higher emphasis

on teaching modal verbs as ways of expressing doubt or certainty to foreign

learners (Holmes, 1988). Perhaps this focus in ESL textbooks might be one of

the underlying reasons why the texts in this study contained a large number of

modal verbs functioning as hedges. Moreover, these results suggested that

boosters such as really in English corpus, and must in Farsi corpuswere

frequently used among columnists.Perhaps this indicates that the columnists

were willing to boost their statements to a certain degree, and prefer to use a

confidence marker as strong as must. As for employing attitude markers, the

findings revealed that even was frequently used in both of the study corpora.

Furthermore, some self-mentions were commonly used such as we, our, and I.

The use of we and our suggest that authors want to spread responsibility by

making it seem more collective (Ekoc, 2011; Koutsantoni, 2006).Besides,

Ivanic (1998) mentioned that using I is critical to reliability of the text, and

helps to form the commitment of writers to their words and create a relationship

with their readers.

To conclude, the present study set out to compare the frequency of sub-

categories of stance markers in English and Persian opinion columns of

newspapers to the probable differences and similarities. Concerning

similarities, the frequency of attitude markers in both sets of opinion columns

were nearly the same, and also less frequent subcategories of stance markers in

both groups were matching. The findings were also interesting in that the most

common sub-categories of attitude markers in both sets of data were equivalent.

These similarities can be attributed to generic conventions. In other words, the

necessity of acting within the same genre would not support using the same

amount and type of metadiscourse cross-culturally, however, the similarities

found between two groups of data demonstrated that genre conventions

demand the specialist writers have some priorities close to each other


(Kuhi&Mojood, 2012). Despite relative similarities of English and Farsi

opinion columns, some significant intercultural differences in the linguistic

preferences of American and Iranian columnists were found. Based on the

results, it could be stated that the use of hedges, boosters, attitude markers, self-

mention, and the most common sub-categories of stance markers differed

across two languages which were clearly making a cultural difference.

According to Hyland (1998b), the use of metadiscourseitems has been nearly

related to the traditions and norms of cultures in genera and discourse

communities.

This study would give insights into the teaching of English as a foreign

language in general and the teaching of writing in English in particular. The

study could be beneficial for EFL students in understanding their intercultural

linguistic problems in language use, helping to produce more effective and

reader-based texts. Moreover, the findings of the study could be used to lead in

creative reading and writing in journalism classes and ESP courses. Thus,

helping students of journalism to produce a kind of writing that is really

informative and persuasive in the eyes of readers and also consistent with the

background cultural context. It would be practical to train journalism students

about using metadiscourse markers appropriately in order to achieve more

success in reporting the world’s events.

References

Abdollahzadeh, E. (2003). Interpersonal Metadiscourse in ELT Papers by

Iranian and Anglo-American Academic Writers. Paper presented at the

International Conference on Multiculturalism in ELT Practice at Baskent

University, Turkey.

Abdollahzadeh, E. (2007). Writers’ presence in English and Persian

newspaper editorials. Paper presented at the 34th International Systemic

Functional Grammar, July, 2007, Denmark.

Adel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Philadelphia: John

Benjamins.

Ansary, H. &Babaii, E. (2009). A cross-cultural analysis of English

newspaper editorials: a systemic-functional view of text for contrastive

rhetoric research. RELC Journal, 40(2),211-249.

AryanpurKashani, M. (2000). The Aryanpur Progressive Dictionary

Companion: English-Persian. Tehran: JahanRayaneh.

Bell, A. (1991). The language of news media. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.


Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysinggenre:Language use in Professional settings.

London: Longman.

Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspect of second-

language writing. Cambridge University Press.

Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., &Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in

persuasive writing: a study of texts written by American and Finnish

university students. Written Communication10, 39–71.

Crystal, D. (1988). On keeping one’s hedges in order. English Today, 4(3),

46–47.

Dafouz, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal

metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion:

A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics,

40, 95-113.

Ekoc, A. (2011). Analyzing Turkish MA students' use of lexical hedging

strategies in theses abstracts. Hasan Ali YücelEğitimFakültesiDergisi, 13,

49-62.

Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the

press. London: Routledge.

Ghadyani, F.,&Tahririan, M. (2014). Interactional markers in English medical

research articles written by Iranian and native authors: A contrastive

metadiscourse analysis of method section. Advances in Language and

Literary Studies, 5(4), 137-150.

Greenberg, J. (2000). Opinion discourse and Canadian newspapers: The case

of the Chinese “Boat people”. Canadian Journal of Communication, 25,

517-537.

Hinkel, E. (2002). Second Language Writers’ Text. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Holmes, J. (1988). Doubt and Certainty in ESL Textbooks. Applied

Linguistics, 9(1), 21-44.

Hyland, K. (1998). Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic

metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 437-455.

Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary Discourses: Writer Stance in Research

Articles.In C. Candlin& K. Hyland (eds) Writing: Texts: Processes and

Practices(pp. 99–121). London: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2000). Hedges, Boosters and Lexical Invisibility: Noticing

Modifiers in Academic Texts. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179-197.

Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in

research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20, 207-226.

Hyland, K., &Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A

reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156-177.


Hyland, K. (2005a). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing.

London: Continuum.

Hyland, K. (2005b). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in

academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 173-192.

Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge:

representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of

English Studies, 8(2), 8-18.

Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing.

Nordic journal of English Studies, 9 (2),125-143.

Isabel, M. (2001). Teaching academic reading: Some initial findings from a

session on hedging. Proceedings of the Postgraduate Conference 2001 -

Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, The University of

Edinburgh.

Ivanic, R. (1988). Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of

Identity in Academic Writing.Amesterdam: Benjamins.

Ivanic, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of

identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education.

Language learning, 16 (1), 1-20.

Koutsantoni, D. (2006). Rhetorical strategies in engineering research articles

and research theses: Advanced academic literacy and relations of power.

Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5 (1), 19-36.

Kuhi, D., &Mojood, M. (2012). A Contrastive Study of Metadiscourse in

Englishand Persian Editorials. The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1),

137-162.

Kuo, C. H. (1999). The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in

scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 18(2), 121 138.

Le, E. (2004). Active participation within written argumentation:

Metadiscourse and editorialists’ authority. Journal of pragmatics, 36(4),

687-714.

Mauranen, A. (1993). Cultural differences in academic rhetoric. Frankfurt am

Main: Peter Lang.

Moreno, A. I. (1997). Genre constraints across languages: Causal metatext in

Spanish and English research articles. ESPJournal, 16 (3), 161-179.

Noorian, M., &Biria, R. (2010). Interpersonal metadiscourse in persuasive

journalism: A study of texts by American and Iranian EFL columnists.

Journal of Modern Language, 20, 64-79.

Prince, E., Frader, J.,&Bosk, C. (1982). On hedging in physician and

physician discourse. In R. J. DiPietro (Ed.), Linguistics and the


Professions: Proceedings of the second annual Delaware symposium on

language studies, (pp.83-97). Noewood, NJ: Ablex

Reah, D. (1998). The language of newspapers. London: Routledge.

Sayah, L. &Hashemi, M.R. (2014). Exploring Stance and Engagement

Features in Discourse Analysis Papers. Theory and Practice in Language

Studies, 4(3), 593–601.

Shams, M. R. (2005). Reading English newspapers. Tehran: Rahyan.

Shokouhi, H. &TalatiBaghsiahi, A. (2009). Metadiscourse functions in

English and Persian sociology articles: A study in contrastive rhetoric.

PoznańStudies in ContemporaryLinguistics 45(4), 535–554.

Van Dijk, T. (1988). News as Discourse. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1996). Opinions and ideologies in editorials. Paper presented

at the 4thInternational Sysmposium of Critical Discourse Analysis:

Language, Social Life and CriticalThought. December, 1995, Athens.

Wishnoff, L. A. (2000). Hedging your bets: L2 learners' acquisition of

pragmatic devices in academic writing and Language Teaching and

Learning. Cambridge: CUP.

Yazdani, S., Sharifi, S., &Elyassi, M. (2014). Interactional Metadiscourse in

English and Persian News Articles about 9/11. Theory and Practice in

Language Studies, 4(2), 428-434.

Appendix A

Metadiscourse items investigated Hedges Estimate

About Estimated

Almost Fairly

Apparent Feel

Apparently Feels

Appear Felt

Appeared Frequently

Appears From my perspective

Approximately From our perspective

Argue From this perspective

Argued Generally

Argues Guess

Around Indicate

Assume Indicated

Assumed Indicates

Broadly In general

Certain amount In most cases

Certain extent In most instances


Certain level In my opinion

Claim In my view

Claimed In this view

Claims In our opinion

Could In our view

Couldn’t Largely

Doubt Likely

Doubtful Mainly

Essentially may

Maybe Supposed

Might Supposes

Mostly Suspect

often Suspects

On the whole Tend to

Ought Tended to

Perhaps Tends to

Plausible To my knowledge

Plausibly Typical

Possible Typically

Possibly Uncertain

Postulate Uncertainly

Postulated Unclear

Postulates Unclearly

Presumable Unlikely

Presumably Usually

Probable Would

Probably Wouldn’t

Quite Boosters

Rather x Actually

Relatively Always

Roughly Believe

Seems Believed

Should Believes

Sometimes Beyond doubt

Somewhat Certain

Suggest Certainly

Suggested Clear

Suggests Clearly

Suppose Conclusively

Decidedly Prove

Definite Proved

Definitely Proves

Demonstrate Realize

Demonstrated Realized

Demonstrates Realizes


Doubtless Really

Establish Show

Established Showed

Evident Shown

Evidently Shows

Find Sure

Finds Surely

Found Think

In fact Thinks

Incontestable Thought

Incontestably Truly

Incontrovertible True

Incontrovertibly Undeniable

Indeed Undeniably

Indisputable Undisputedly

Indisputably Undoubtedly

Know Without doubt

Known Attitude Markers

Must !

Never Admittedly

No doubt Agree

Obvious Agrees

Obviously Agreed

Of course Amazed

Amazing Importantly

Amazingly Inappropriate

Appropriate Inappropriately

Appropriately Interesting

Astonished Interestingly

Astonishing Prefer

Astonishingly Preferable

Correctly Preferably

Curious Preferred

Curiously Remarkable

Desirable Remarkably

Desirably Shocked

Disappointed Shockingly

Disappointing Striking

Disappointingly Strikingly

Disagree Surprised

Disagreed Surprising

Disagrees Surprisingly

Dramatic Striking

Dramatically Strikingly

Essential Surprised

Essentially Surprising


Even x Surprisingly

Expected Unbelievable

Expectedly Unbelievably

Fortunate Understandable

Fortunately Understandably

Hopeful Unexpected

Hopefully Unexpectedly

Important Unfortunate

Unfortunately My

Unusual Our

Unusually Mine

Unusual Us

Self Mention The author

I The author’s

We The writer

Me The writer’s

Biodata

DavudKuhi, PhD in Applied linguistics, is an assistant professor at Islamic

Azad University, Maragheh branch. He has been teaching ESP and Discourse

Analysis, and his main research interests include academic discourse and genre

analysis.

Mina Babapour, MA in English Language Teaching, graduated from Islamic

Azad University, Tabriz branch. Her current research covers discourse analysis

and genre analysis.

Date post:	23-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

A Contrastive Study of Stance-Markers in Opinion Columns...

Documents